Creation question...

This is a question for creationists. As someone who accepts evolution, I can explain, in one short paragraph, why there are deep cave dwelling animals with:

1) no eyes

2) mostly intact but non-functional eyes just under the skin

3) remnants of eye structures buried more deeply

What is the straightforward creationist explanation for this state of affairs? What about ID supporters?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well super, I know that I’m going to get crucified for this but here’s my answer:

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The main point of the account of creation in Genisis is that God created earth. Not ‘how God made the earth’, not ‘why God made the earth’, just ‘God made the earth’. Some of that other stuff is addressed a bit, but it’s not the main point.
I’m both a Christian who believes God created the earth and I accept that Darwinian theory of evolution is a possibility, though I keep in mind that it’s a theory and that many other biologists are supporting, refuting (read Michael J. Behe for the biochemical challenge to evolution), or amending (as in punctuated evolution) Darwinian evolution. I’d like to point out that Darwin was more concerned with natural selection as a reason we survive, not a reason why we evolved.
So here’s the answer from the Christian who believes that God created the earth and that evolution is a possibility: Those eyes are probably vestigial organs, but that is not a certainty.

I don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for, but that’s what I’m giving you. Everyone crucify away.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because God made it that way. That's the straightforward creationist response.

What are you getting at?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really getting at anything I suppose. I understand that the "Because God made it that way" response is the final creationist position on everything. I just like to see some of the justifications religious types use to defend themselves.

Crimson,

Clearly creationism, as put forth by its proponents, and evolution are definitely mutually exclusive. The main point of the Genesis accounts is not that the earth was created, but that EVERYTHING was created as it is, about 6000 years ago. So why would god make cave dwelling salamanders with degenerate eyes under the skin? Those are the responses I'm looking for.

 

I am a "Creationist". If I were a "New Earther" I'd simply ask why make it with eyes if it'll live in a dark place and not need them? Then I'd ask this question for those with the "eye remnants"; are we sure they serve absolutely no purpose? When these two questions have satisfactorily conclusive answers then we'll get at something.

I am an "ID supporter", however I do not see how this question would necessarily be restricted to the class "ID supporter"? Would it be; why would someone/thing Intelligent create degenerate eyes on something that "doesn't need"(?) them? If it were that question, I as an "ID supporter" would simply ask, for example; why take an umbrella out when it's not raining? These are potentially all rhetorical and could serve as answers.

 

"are we sure they serve absolutely no purpose?" - Yes, we're sure.

"why take an umbrella out when it's not raining?"

This implies that the "designer" was less than certain of the role his/her/its cave dwelling salamander was to play. Was the "designer" going to "evolve" the degenreate eyes into functional ones in the future if the need should arise? Are you now an evolutionist?

 

How so? Any sources? Sciforums would certainly detest the title of "Gospel"forum.

It might, but no analogy can ever exactly mirror that which it is supposed to illucidate. In this one let's say one is sure the umbrella can/will serve/serves a purpose.

I await the supporting comments/sources regarding your "Yes, we're sure". Depending on your support this question may be irrelevant to the discourse.

 

Super,

I think the 'eye' poses more challenge to the theory of evolution than to the already beaten up creation theory. Here is an old thread in bio & genetics i started more than a year back.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29904

 

How so Neo?

Also, for the luminous one, are we so sure these "eye remnants" are really remnants of eyes? Again, I as an "ignorant Creationist" await some conclusive responses that will "illuminate my darkness".

You see, unless the questions can be answered with some sort of support there is really nothing to defend against. The Bible has more than enough Gospel for the Creationist to process.

 

but none of it fact, it is a fact that animals live in dark place and have no need for eyes, or colour pigmentation, but they tend to have the remnants of these organs and limbs.
which just like your vermiform appendix or your coccyx, are useless to you.
why do you have them?.
http://www.earthsky.com/shows/earthcare/shows.php?s=s&h=Animals&t=20040411
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

 

Answers about the uselesness of the apendix
Today, the appendix is recognized as a highly specialized organ with a rich blood supply. This is not what we would expect from a degenerate, useless structure.

The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialized structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendix’s function is found in its strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel or colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria which are useful there, but which must be kept away from other areas such as the small bowel and the bloodstream.

Through the cells in these lymphoid follicles, and the antibodies they make (see box below), the appendix is ‘involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life’.6 Like the very important thymus gland in our chest, it is likely that the appendix plays its major role in early childhood. It is also probably involved in helping the body recognize early in life that certain foodstuffs, bacterially derived substances, and even some of the body’s own gut enzymes, need to be tolerated and not seen as ‘foreign’ substances needing attack

Some other useless organs and their uses

In the past, evolutionists claimed that there were approximately 180 vestigial organs in humans, including the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland and the thymus. Now we know that:

The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content.

The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx.8

The pineal gland secretes malatonin which is a hormone that regulates the circadian rhythm and has other functions.

The thymus is part of the immune system, related to T-cells. HIV attacks T-cells, rendering them ineffective and for this reason is always eventually fatal

I'll look for the others somewhere and reply as i find them
God bless Jako
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
A. Einstein

 

...is for kids. Sorry, I'm not one. I need more detailed info before I buy into it. Be fair will you? Us religious types try to explain it as much as possible to you - do the same.

Oh, thanks for that psycho - saved me the effort. It seems the individual didn't even read the links referenced because even they state the functionality of the referenced "appendages".

 

While the evolutionists search for supporting info regarding the "purposelessness" of the "eye remnants" I would also encourage them to give the following a perusal.

Read more...

 

...?... enlighten me please...

 

you seem to be the clever one so why do we have wisdom teeth, fifth digit phalanges, diminished hirsutism and goose pimples, could you also supply the reference material you got your information from thank you

 

I'm sure I won't get much of a reply or I'll be labeled a crackpot by theists and atheists alike, but I'll throw in my $.02:

What if, the Bible, isn't God's word at all (meaning that the idea of a 6,000 year old earth is bunk)? I know Atheists will just say "because your God would never let a book like that come into existence", but I honestly am beginning to see it that way. Maybe, sometime in the distant past, these animals didn't live so deep in caves (like in the much more warm and humid time of the prehistoric era). As the earth cooled, these creatures emmigrated to the caves, but if humans existed at the time (of course not modern humans, but some form of hominid), they would have known about these animals. God couldn't just remove their eyes entirely, so he created evolution with things like this in mind.

Or maybe, God is a deist God (a view I've come to agree with, whether it was my decision or not).

I think (and you've all heard the argument in some form or another) that God simply wrote down the universe's little equation, set it into motion, and let it go. God may not have "left", but God may just be indifferent to what happens. He's got the physics where he wants them, now he wants to see the end product.

 

The species adapted to its environment by dormant genes being activated. The species became another breed of the same animal, like breeds of dogs.
The species DID NOT change into another new species.
Evolution will cause adaptation of a species into different breeds of the same species, as observed. Evolution will never lead to the developement of a totally new species. This is not observed. Also because of the missing intermediate stages that are not found in the fossils, it is also not observed in the fossil record either.
Evolution for the origin of the different species, is simply not true and cannot be proven.

 

the information i got was from www.answersingenesis.org

 

What's the matter, couldn't you find it in answeringenesis? Here, I found it for you:

"However, Dr Coyne is on safe ground in assuming that blind cave creatures descended from ones that had eyes. There are cave fish, for instance, often the same species as 'seeing' ones above ground, who start to develop eyes as embryos. But then the process halts and they end up with scar tissue where their eyes were evidently meant to be (see aside below). But what does that have to do with what is usually meant by 'evolution'? Had he bothered to read the mainstream creationist literature, Coyne would have realized that we delight in using blind cave fish as examples of 'downhill' or 'information-losing' mutations causing 'devolution'. "
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/eldredge.asp


Of course, we Evolutionists delight in letting poor Mr. Wieland in on the evidence that the lack of eyes is caused by an "uphill" or "information increasing" mutation. It is, in fact, a mutation that suppresses eye development that causes the fish not to have eyes, something the ancestors lacked.


"What all this is telling us is that the failure of the eye to form in the blind cavefish isn't the result of a passive loss of eye genes, but the expansion of expression of genes that actively oppose eye formation. Other work from the Jeffery lab suggests that the expanding genes are responsible for an increase in jaw size and the number of gustatory receptors. The enlargement of sensory and manipulatory structures isn't to compensate for the loss of eyes, as Darwin suggested, but may actually be the developmental cause of the organism's blindness."

http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/development_of_cavefish_eyes/

Certainly, let's take a look:

"According to evolutionary theory, organisms that possess identical morphologies (forms or structures) must share a common ancestry. Evolutionary biologists, therefore, have employed morphological systematics––the study of the relationships among organisms according to physical characteristics––when classifying species"

Of course, the problem is that Evolutionary theory states no such thing. Morphological systematics is taxonomy, not evolution. The assumption there is generally that the more similar the morphology the more closely related but this is a general principle and not an absolute. But once again, we're talking Taxonomy and not Evolutionary theory.

Freaking anti-evolutionists can't even get their subjects straight much less present a coherent premise to an argument.

~Raithere

 

I don't live at this site Raithere as I hope you can identify with - I visit now and then - I saw the link along with your post.

One thing I am yet to recognise in the wealth of information provided (thanks both to you and the African) is the baleful effect on New Earth Creationism.

One thing pharyngula doesn't clearly address is whether an assumption that there was a "mutation" which resulted in a "divergence into species" is a correct one. Which came first; fish with eyes or fish without? Could they both have come together?

A mutation, yes; eye "remnants", yes; so? Since all in all it doesn't address evolution (as stated by you - taxonomy) and I'm not seeing how it addresses Creationism... I'm yet to see what superluminal was getting at... Creationism stands so far...